Darren Sproles vs. Reggie Bush: Who's the superior weapon?

this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; Sorry SloMo, I mistakenly thought you were quoting the article written, not giving your opinion. And, btw, I was agreeing with you that Sproles is superior, it should not be an issue, and someone getting paid to write such drivel ...

Sorry SloMo, I mistakenly thought you were quoting the article written, not giving your opinion. And, btw, I was agreeing with you that Sproles is superior, it should not be an issue, and someone getting paid to write such drivel had the metaphorical visual distortion.

Really guy? 'crack coated pubic hair covering his eyes', I expect that kind of garbage on a Detroit board or an Atlanta board, but not on B&G. You disappoint me ... the stats I'm reading are posted in my reply to 'the Dude' ... feel free to analyze them yourself.

Rushing average ... number of carries figures into this, Bush consistenly had more carries per season and thus his APC will be lower ... you conveniently left out # of touchdowns also.

Receiving average ... again, you're not looking at number of receptions, if I catch 1 pass for 70yds and you catch 3 passes of 75yds, 20yds and 10yds, who has the better receiving average? Where's the YPG stat on both these guys?

Why is it a debate? ... probably because it's the offseason, bountygate is winding down & Drew has signed ... it's really not, in every post I chose Sproles over Bush, IDK why it's being perceived I'm backing Reggie Bush so much ... the mere fact he dated Kim Kardashian and I was subjected to seeing the camera pan over to her during a few games is enough to nauseate me & turn me against Reggie forever ... I was just pointing out that both backs experienced the best seasons of their career after leaving their respective teams and the change of scenery obviously did them some good ... it's one of those intangibles I like to focus on and whereas Bush may statistically be the better back, he's not the best back for New Orleans ... Sproles is, but that's not to say Bush isn't productive somewhere else, because he is ... in Miami.

Advantage: still New Orleans/Sproles.

Now get off me.

I would rather have someone that actually gets yards all year round than a guy who may have a higher "rushing average" for 8 games. This is about real production not stats. Stats do not matter one bit it just gives nerds something to argue about when they are wrong. Winning and producing is what counts not stats.

Sorry SloMo, I mistakenly thought you were quoting the article written, not giving your opinion. And, btw, I was agreeing with you that Sproles is superior, it should not be an issue, and someone getting paid to write such drivel had the metaphorical visual distortion.

It's alright, ... I went back and looked and saw the blogger was bald, so I didn't know what to think, ... I knew we were agreeing on Sproles being the better back and the one New Orleans would rather have ... I'm not trying to yank chains by suggesting there's an argument for Bush, it's just an interesting debate, all considered ... I wish the Lions had these kind of running back problems/debates, .

Originally Posted by The Dude

I would rather have someone that actually gets yards all year round than a guy who may have a higher "rushing average" for 8 games. This is about real production not stats. Stats do not matter one bit it just gives nerds something to argue about when they are wrong. Winning and producing is what counts not stats.

... and I absolutely agreed with you and supported Sproles over Bush for this reason, but it can't be denied Bush starting 15 games for MIA and gaining 1000+ yds isn't production and he was on the Saints 2009 roster as far as the 'winning' thing goes ... I honestly think Bush is the better individual back (when healthy), not because I'm a stats nerd arguing because I'm wrong, but because the stats jump out at you ... Sproles basically contributes the same production as Bush did in NO, which is an improvement over his SD numbers, and is more durable, while Bush went on to MIA and had his most productive season ever ... it's just the way NO/MIA use their RB's and it's win/win for both teams they each got a running back that fits so well into their offensive schemes.

I'm not arguing, just saying I see the how some people would say Bush is the superior weapon, which he may be in MIA, but not in NO.

I would agree that on the surface it would appear that this is not even a debate...Sproles hands down. However, if I speculate...

Reggie was so good coming out of college. It's like someone said, "Sproles did everything we expected Reggie to do!" Is it possible, though, that Reggie has been heavily accounted for ever since he came into the league?

Is it possible that with everybody paying so much attention to Reggie, other players were allowed to flourish, like Colston as an example. To take it a step further, is it really stretching to say that once people started paying attention to the other guys after Reggie left that they were able to do some of the things they always wanted to do with Reggie but couldn't because they were paying so much attention to him being on the field.

I think that another poster said that we might have a clearer view a couple of years later, but since RB's have such a short career expectancy...we just may never know.

I would agree that on the surface it would appear that this is not even a debate...Sproles hands down. However, if I speculate...

Reggie was so good coming out of college. It's like someone said, "Sproles did everything we expected Reggie to do!" Is it possible, though, that Reggie has been heavily accounted for ever since he came into the league?

Is it possible that with everybody paying so much attention to Reggie, other players were allowed to flourish, like Colston as an example. To take it a step further, is it really stretching to say that once people started paying attention to the other guys after Reggie left that they were able to do some of the things they always wanted to do with Reggie but couldn't because they were paying so much attention to him being on the field.

I think that another poster said that we might have a clearer view a couple of years later, but since RB's have such a short career expectancy...we just may never know.

It sure seemed like there was...especially his rookie year. He got banged up a lot, too. I'm not arguing, but I am only trying to account for why he wasn't able to do the things he did in college with such frequency.

I know that your first response is that people are a lot faster in the NFL, but others have met the challenge and continued to excel in the pros.

I am only wondering out loud because it is curious that someone who had such success in college would struggle so in the pros.